I haven't said much about politics recently. You may have thought, "Wow, Andrea is really restraining herself lately." Oh no. PLEASE. As if. I was just waiting until I could do a big old mega politics post and get it over with in one. Because I am lazy like that.

Like everyone and their mother and their uncle and the old man next door who yells at kids to get off his damn lawn, I have an opinion about Sarah Palin and more importantly, about John McCain choosing Palin. Yesterday at work I was looking at CNN and Receptionist Lady was like, "Oh, did you watch her (Palin's) speech last night? It was really good."

And I looked at her and said, "No, I didn't. I don't like Palin."

RL: "Oh, why not? She gave a really good speech."

Me: "She could've given the best speech in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that she's against reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and doesn't believe that global warming is caused by people."

RL: "Oh. Well yeah, that's a good point."

( Why I won't be voting for McCain/Palin, even though I have met John McCain and think he's a pretty decent guy. And why you should seriously reconsider if you had thought about voting for them previously. )

And now I will leave you with some Jon Stewart, because he is beautiful:



ETA: You know who would've been an inspired choice for McCain? Ron Paul.

Obama made a speech about what it means to be a patriot, and he made me cry, so I am copying it here and no one is allowed to make fun of me.

On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists – farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys – left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous – for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.

And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day – a shot heard round the world – the American Revolution, and America’s experiment with democracy, began.

Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism – theirs, and ours.

We do so in part because we are in the midst of war – more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.

( He name checks JOHN ADAMS, you guys. Read more. )

Today is the Day of Silence, this year in honor of Lawrence King, who was shot and killed in his classroom by another student because he was gay and he wasn't afraid to show it.

Silence is profound and symbolic. It represents so many things. The silence that the LGBT community is faced with every day from our government, our politicians, the mainstream media, and our educational institutions that would rather ignore an entire minority than acknowledge their absolute right to exist and prosper in the same space as straights. It represents the silence that stems from the fear of closeted queers, a fear that incidents like the Lawrence King shooting makes so palpable and real. It represents the fear of our straight allies of being boxed and labeled and harassed. But at the same time, it reclaims all that fear and transforms it into a silence that resonates across the country in a simple but effective way. It says: I am making a stand and coming out against the insidiously destructive cultural intolerance for queers. You can't hear me speak today because you refuse to listen.

I hope the silence is deafening.

Let's do a reality check breakdown of the democratic primary race, shall we? All data from CNN.

Pledged Delegates: (delegates won)
Clinton: 1330
Obama: 1484

Superdelegates:
Clinton: 254
Obama: 230

Total delegates:
Clinton: 1584
Obama: 1714

Primary races won:
Clinton: 14/16 (if you count Michigan and Florida)
Obama: 15

Caucuses won:
Clinton: 1
Obama: 13

Popular vote:
Clinton: 13,896,368 (47.5%)
Obama: 14,397,506 (49.2%)

From Michael Moore's blog:

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

( Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. )

*

For serious, this is fabulous. And reminds me once again why I love Michael Moore, because he says what I'm thinking in the simplest, blunt way possible. Also, wtf, Reverand Wright counseled the Clintons? Seriously? And no one has mentioned this before now??

This report over at Towleroad makes me really sad and angry and disgusted with newspeople:

I thought Oprah handled the story of pregnant transgender man Thomas Beatie with respect yesterday. Not everybody's so accepting of Beatie, however, and plenty of people are openly threatened by him.

Like David Letterman, who called Beatie an "androgynous freak show" in his Top Ten the other night, the hosts of MSNBC's Morning Joe spent a few minutes expressing their nausea. Take a look at how Willie Geist, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough air their disgust about Oprah "legitimizing this" in this morning's 'News You Can't Use':

Says Scarborough: "I'm not gonna look at this. Tell me when it's over. I'm not looking. We don't want the facts. I can't handle the facts."

Says Brzezinski: "I don't want to know the deal. I don't want to hear. I'm gonna be sick. I'm gonna be sick. I am upset. That was not only stupid and useless, but quite frankly, disgusting."

Brzezinski asked who the father is, and Scarborough responds: "The parrot at the pet shop...A former aide of Jim McGreevey. Are the McGreevey's involved in this in any way?"

( This got really long... )

So normally I would never do this because a) it's American Idol and it's not important and b) I know Jacob, so it's a little creepy to be quoting him or whatever, but. I just read his recap from the results show and he really said everything I was thinking about Danny and why his ellimination bothers me so fucking much:

I think that another way to look at the two narratives is to say this: the Paula story, about dreams coming true, serves to make this show a packaged product. The Simon story, by accomplishing that, also promises to make the people themselves a packaged product with a shelflife longer than this show. To say "I can make you the next Kelly Clarkson," first you have to say, "I think you can become the next Kelly Clarkson." And normally these things work together because of the structure of the show as a competition: rubbing off the edges and perfecting the performances week after week. I'm always shocked when they bring back old contestants, because we can remember when they were unformed and jagged, and when they come back they seem like these perfect, practiced machines. But I think the issue with Danny really comes down to this: he contributed to the show as a packaged product, he got the Sanjaya engines turning, he was a topic of discussion. But the show didn't return the favor, because "a Danny" is not, in 2008, a salable product. He's an ensemble player who got lied to and told that it was possible to become a lead, and it's not. Not today. Maybe not ever.

There's something ironic in the fact that Danny got Afghanistaned in this way -- used for the show's purposes and then being punished by America for being good at it -- with this, of all possible songs. There's something tainted about dudes kissing, and we are willing to forgive it as long as it stays small and silly and funny. There's something tainted about that love. But what's more tainted than homosexuality is the way that we, at this cusp of our national development, at this very specific moment in humanism and our social evolution as a culture, relate to it. We run to him, we run from him, we took all the boy could give, and it turns out that's not nearly all. America gets an F for knocking him off his pedestal, because it's way too early, but mostly: F America for putting him up there at all. He deserved better.

And, you know, not to get preachy on you guys because it's Friday and I'm really not looking for it, but this pretty much encapsulates my entire point about being gay on stage vs. being gay for real. It's kids like Danny who are going to change America's perceptions--gay kids being gay all over the place without fear, in public and in private, with no straight story to fall back on. It's like Andrew Sullivan said last week--we are the ones we've been waiting for. Should we deny straight people's desire and willingness to fight discrimination and negative perceptions on our behalf? Of course not. But in the end, it's down to us, and we have to take responsibility for those things ourselves, and we have to be willing to do so openly and proudly and without shame.

It's why I end up genuinely liking kids like Danny and Christian Sceriano: because they are shameless. And not just in the way that they are purposely over flamboyant and so on, but in the way that they literally do not have shame. Because honestly, there is nothing about being gay that's shameful, but a LOT of gay people don't seem to know that, and self-loathing or self-repression doesn't do anyone any favors, and it certainly doesn't win civil rights.

*deep breath* Okay, I'm done.

For the first time ever in the history of a presidential campaign, a candidate is running LGBT message-specific ads in LGBT publications. Kerry ran general ads in LGBT publications, but they didn't mention LGBT concerns, they were just "vote for Kerry" in general:



And when I went to the rally last week, Obama talked to us about LGBT rights and the importance of equality for all people and all Americans. I was sort of shocked he'd talk about that to such a huge crowd in TEXAS right in front of the capital building over which George W. Bush presided for so long, but he did. And it was wonderful to witness the crowd's reaction--people who I'd never think would be pro-LGBT rights nodding their heads and clapping, because it seemed like they were actually listening to his message. That's the first time I'd ever seen a major political figure (who was not Kucinich) address a crowd not primarily made up of LGBT folks about LGBT issues.

So to me--yes, Obama and Clinton have very similar LGBT policies. But there are two big differences: 1) repealing the entirety of DOMA and 2) willingness to speak out about LGBT issues to non-LGBT people.

( Here is his stance on LGBT rights in his own words. )

Recently, Barack Obama made the statement: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." And that pretty much sums up why I voted for him. Andrew Sullivan says it better, especially in regard to the GLBT rights movement:

A reader writes:

It surprises me that some commentators see messianism in a phrase that strikes me as deeply anti-messianic. The line is akin to "there's no Justice, there's just us" in that it calls on us to give up our fantasies of some deus ex machina descending to make everything right and just, and urges us to roll up our sleeves and get involved.

In a slightly different context, Reagan could have said it. As someone involved in the gay rights world for a while, it strikes me that this is also a core message we need to convey. The Clinton model - exemplified by the Human Rights Campaign - is: give us some big donor checks, we'll hire a lobbyist (if you're lucky), and we'll work the Democratic party establishment to give you your equality (which somehow never happens). Meanwhile: keep whining (and sending the checks). The Obama model is: you will only get your equality if you stand up for it, risk your job, status, even life for the sake of your own integrity. Stop whining and start explaining and persuading and acting.

So many gay people over the years have asked me where our "leader" is. It's the wrong question. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Be the change you want to see in the world. And the world changes. In exact proportion to the number of gay people who have abandoned their fear and self-hatred, it already has. No excuses, guys. And no need to wait.

Yes. Thank you, that is EXACTLY it.

An article in the Atlantic just posted by Joshua Green profiles Hillary Clinton's campaign and the recent spat of firings the Senator has engaged in:

For the many people in and around Washington who obsess over the latest machinations in Hillaryland, the firing of Solis Doyle—and she was fired, several insiders confirm—is a big deal, but for reasons somewhat different from what the media coverage has suggested. Her title of “campaign manager” implies a loftier role than the one she actually played. She is the furthest thing from a Rove-like strategic genius (Mark Penn inhabits that role for Hillary), so her leaving doesn’t signify an impending change of strategy, as some reports seem to assume. Rather, Solis Doyle, who began as Clinton’s personal scheduler in 1991 (and who, as it happens, coined the term “Hillaryland”) was Clinton’s alter ego and was installed in the job specifically for that reason. Her performance in Clinton’s past races and especially in this one reflects all the good and the bad that the alter-ego designation carries. I’ve always felt that the most revealing thing about Solis Doyle is her oft-repeated line: “When I’m speaking, Hillary is speaking.” It is revealing both because it is true and because it conveys—and even flaunts—an arrogance that I think is the key to understanding all that has gone wrong for the Clinton campaign.

Such arrogance led directly to the idea that Clinton could simply project an air of inevitability and be assured her party’s nomination. If she wins—as she very well might—it will be in spite of her original approach. As one former Clinton staffer put it to me last spring: “There was an assumption that if you were a major donor and wanted to be an ambassador, go to state dinners with the queen—unless you were an outright fool, you were going to go with Hillary, whether you liked her or not. The attitude was ‘Where else are they going to go?’”

( The full article under the cut. )

So, remember my friend who told me that he wasn't going to vote in the Texas primaries to "protest" the two-party system? Um, yeah. What follows is my email exchange with him.

( And then he told me that the root of all evil in the American political system is the Federalist Papers, leading me to believe that he really doesn't get Alexander Hamilton, sort of like Simon Cowell does not understand KYLE. )

dazifudo pointed me towards this essay by Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who we had as our Gender Studies 101 professor at the University of Chicago. She also taught some intro to American Politics class--lecksee, I think you had her for that? She was an interesting professor, and I guess she teaches at Princeton now, but she was a huge advocate of the personal is political and of how gender, race, sexual orientation, and class are really all one big mush up of a civil rights movement. Anyway, here's her essay. It's interesting. Some of you might not agree with, um, anything she says, but it's very HER, and I'll put my thoughts down at the end.

There's been a lot of talk about women and their choices since Super Tuesday, when African American women overwhelmingly voted for Sen. Barack Obama, while white women picked Sen. Hillary Clinton. Some pundits automatically concluded that "race trumped gender" among black women. I hate this analysis because it relegates black women to junior-partner status in political struggles. It is not that simple. A lot of people have tried to gently explain the divide, so I'm just going to put this out there: Sister voters have a beef with white women like Clinton that is both racial and gendered. It is not about choosing race; it is about rejecting Hillary's Scarlett O'Hara act.

( Black women voters are rejecting Hillary Clinton because her ascendance is not a liberating symbol. )

*

So basically what I get from this is that black women aren't voting based on gender or based on race, they're voting based on the racist legacy of feminism and they're voting on who will do the most about the things that matter to them. And I can see what she means; not that Hillary is racist, because I don't think that's what she's saying. I think she's saying that Hillary isn't a feminist, or at least not the sort of feminist that appeals to African American feminsts, and it's insulting for pollsters to say that black women are voting race over gender, because a vote for Hillary doesn't count as a vote for feminism.

I don't know that I agree with her 100%, but I do see where she's coming from re: Hillary and her feminism. She's not a feminist to me. And that's bothered me for a very long time. I understand the political jam she's in, but you know--that doesn't make me want to vote for her. She doesn't let her feminism inform her enough in my opinion.

Anyway, this is a volatile topic that I don't know nearly enough about to have a real conversation, but I thought the essay was interesting. And funny that I had this woman as a professor. Her class was fun, she let me do my final paper on The Bluest Eye. I had her during the 2000 election, and she was SO DEPRESSED and horrified when Bush won.

ETA: dazifudo pointed me towards this debate between Harris-Lacewell and Gloria Steinem. It's very interesting, and I'm struck by this comment from Melissa Harris-Lacewell:

Well, I mean, honestly, I’m appalled by the parallel that Ms. Steinem draws in the beginning part of the New York Times article. What she’s trying to do there is to make a claim towards sort of bringing in black women into a coalition around questions of gender and asking us to ignore the ways in which race and gender intersect. This is actually a standard problem of second-wave feminism, which, although there have been twenty-five years now—oh, going on forty years, actually, of African American women pushing back against this, have really failed to think about the ways in which trying to appropriate black women’s lives’ experience in that way is really offensive, actually.

Because yes, exactly.

ETA2: ( Some more awesome things where she says what I'm thinking, only better, )

First off, how exciting is this primary/caucus season?? I'm probably a bit more excited about the whole thing than the average American (and a lot more excited than the average Republican, oy, you poor fuckers), but still--democracy! In action!! Is very exciting. Today is the Potomic Primaries, ie Maryland, Virginia, and DC. I have no idea what's going to happen, but it's exciting nonetheless. Someone in DC... do you guys actually get delegates? I think it's shitty that DC doesn't get any electoral votes. I mean, the city proper has a higher population than the state of Wyoming, which gets 3 electoral votes. If WYOMING gets a say in who's president, why shouldn't the residents of our nation's capitol??

ETA: glendaglamazon has pointed out that I'm retarded. DC does get electoral votes. They don't get congressional representation (whose votes count, anyway).

Ahem, anyway. YAY democracy. So I was arguing today with a friend about him not wanting to vote in the Texas primary. He says he doesn't want to vote in protest of the two-party system, which I think is ridiculous. I say that you can't change a system by refusing to participate, at least--not as an individual. And you'll do more good working from inside the system to change it than you will trying to bludgeon it from the outside.

( Wow, this got long. Blah blah, in which I rant about people who are stupid. )

Those of you who have been with me for a while know that I am very into politics and that I love Andrew Sullivan's blog. Sullivan is a gay British Republican. I mean, he doesn't live in Britain anymore, but you know what I mean. Sometimes I disagree with him, especially about fiscal conservatism issues, and sometimes I am amazed by how much we agree. He likes Obama, and his blog has sort of been the driving force towards convincing me of Obama over Clinton. And mostly it's not what he says (he truly and overwhelmingly hates the Clintons, it can get a bit annoying, actually) but the letters he posts from people who write in that have convinced me:

My wife and I are serving overseas in Yemen and I wanted to share a quick anecdote with you about Obama-buzz here in Sanaa. While getting my haircut several weeks ago, I was surprised when my barber Mohammed drifted from his usual aspersions about George Bush to suddenly inquire about Barack Obama. My Arabic is fairly limited, so it took me some time to understand that Mohammed and the other Yemeni patrons had seen Obama during an appearance with Oprah on Al-Jazeera. All of them agreed that of the people seeking to become President, Obama offered the only redemptive option for America.

After my haircut was nearing an end - a nearly 60 minute process - Mohammed said that "if a black man can become President, then maybe the story of America isn't a lie after all."

A few weeks later I was surprised at the end of a meeting with Yemeni government officials, when my hosts broke out into spontaneous praise for Obama and simultaneous incredulity that a man of color could win the American presidency. These two stories are just blips on the Yemeni consciousness, but it's worth noting that the advent of satellite television enables even the poorest families in the Middle East's poorest country to follow the US election. Those two stories stand out as the most dramatic to me, but they're not the only ones. Obama's mere candidacy has restored a fraction of the prestige and credibility we've lost - at least in Sanaa.

( More things behind the cut. Politics, ranting about health care, etc. Be forewarned that you might not (probably will not) agree with me. )

HAPPY VOTING DAY!!!

Not that I get to vote today, being that I live in Texas and am registered in Ohio, neither of which have their primaries until next month, but happy voting day to those of you who get to vote today!! I certainly have my favorites as to who I like best and who I think will be able to beat McCain in the general election come November (Obama, *cough*), but in the end, the reason this country is so amazing is because the people truly decide and it's up to each individual to choose the candidate that best represents his/her views.

So, you know, GO VOTE. You can't complain about the results of a process if you don't participate in the process itself; no one ever effected change by removing themselves from the system entirely.

"That is the true genius of America-- a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted -- at least most of the time.

This year, in this election we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we're measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations.

...Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America." -Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention, 2004

So, you know. VOTE.

For those of you who pay attention, Episode 20 of slashcast is up: Lies on Lies. My segment is on Larry Craig.

*

"[Homosexuality] is [a sin]....You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol...or sex addiction...or kleptomaniacs."

"One might have that lifestyle, but if one promotes it as acceptable behavior… I don’t think they should be a representative of this country."

"These people are intellectually dishonest in just about everything they do or say… They start by pretending that it is just another form of love. It's sickening."

"Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals. That's just a true statement. The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions, leads to totalitarianism, Nazism, and communism."

These are all statements made by Republican congressmen in the past ten years, the first of which by Trent Lott, who was the Senate majority leader at the time he made the statement. This is the atmosphere that Republican congressmen face on a day-to-day basis. In any other job in, well, okay, about half of the United States, these statements would be regarded as hate speech. They would be harassment.

( The summer after my second year of college, I went back to my hometown of Toledo, Ohio, and got a job at the only place that was hiring and didn't involve food service: the Meijer Store. )

In my mind, this form of conservatism is the opposite of compassionate, and furthermore, it makes me angry. Angry that because these sorts of Republicans are so full of ignorance and hate, I have to be compassionate for them. Especially when all they really wanted was a little mouth-to-penis resuscitation.

Links:

+Top 5 Republican Gay Sex Scandals of the Past 5 Years
+Roll Call exposes Larry Craig
+Why Andrew Sullivan doesn't feel sorry for Larry Craig

Haven't had a Newsday in a while, and I did write a whole long essay about the LGBT Presidential Forum for slashcast, so I figured I'd share. (And of course, I managed to work Lance in there, because it's me and I LOVE LANCE OMG, but it's also actually related, and not even tangentially!)

*

So, I tried to watch the Presidential forum on LGBT issues last Thursday, but the Time Warner Cable company said no, no, no. Fortunately for all of you, the internet provided me with everything I never wanted to know about just exactly how little our next President, whether he be Democrat or Republican, man or woman, black or white, will be working for LGBT rights. Not that any Republicans accepted the offer to be involved in the forum, of course, but as far as I'm concerned, the Democrats maybe shouldn't have bothered, either.

The forum was exactly what I expected: a bunch of democrats politicking around the issue of same-sex marriage and trying to pretend that civil unions equal equality and that it's not all a symbol regardless. Obama and Clinton and Edwards can go on and on about state's rights and marriage just being a word and how what really matters are the actual civil rights that go along with marriage, but you can see it in their faces when they're talking—they're just hedging their bets. They know, absolutely, the way that Kucinich and that other random guy from Alaska do, that it's only partly about the civil rights. Moreso, it's about the amorphous idea of equality; it's about what the denial of that one small word does to the spirit and the will and the confidence of an entire group of citizens.

( A year ago July, Lance Bass came out of the closet. )

*

And while we're on the topic, I think we should talk about Senator Craig's gay sex scandal. You know, in the past YEAR, the Republicans have had three major gay sex scandals. THREE! The Democrats? ZERO. And you know why this is? It's because the Republican party's culture doesn't allow for people to be gay. It encourages hatred and homophobia not just in thought, but in practice as well, and so you end up with these men who are self-haters; these gay men who have been taught for decades and decades that something intrinsic and fundamental about themselves is wrong and un-Christian and dirty and evil. Is it any surprise that they try to repress? That they lead secret double lives and end up getting caught?

Senator Craig has been forced to step down from all his leadership positions, committee chairs, etc, and it looks like the Republican party is going to make him resign. And you know, I don't like Craig and his voting record makes me want to vomit, but I do feel some sympathy for him over this matter. The hypocrisy of prominent republicans (McCain, Huckabee) trying to force Craig to step down because of a situation they helped create via the culture of hatred and homophobia they perpetuated within their own party disgusts me FAR more than Craig trying to get a blowjob in an airport bathroom.

Democrats don't have this problem because our gay congressmen aren't forced to hide their sexuality. They don't need to become self-haters because the party respects the LGBT community and it's getting better and better within the party every day. It's things like this that will rip the Republicans apart.

And hey, maybe that's the secret gay agenda all along. If so, we are much sneakier and awesome than I previously suspected.

People may have already posted this, but I just saw it over at Queerty so I thought I'd repost it here. I just have to say--Lance is amazing. Although I sincerely doubt he actually wrote this because it is far too well-articulated for him. Not that Lance is dumb, not at all. But he did go to bus school. From the Visible Vote 08 blog:

In the upcoming election my hope is that we find a leader who has the ability to understand, work with and effectively negotiate with other world leaders as well as fix the severe problems we face at home. The United States needs to maintain its ability to be the most admired, respected and powerful nation in the world.

There are so many important issues at stake in this election, it’s difficult to pinpoint just one that’s the most important to me. I am very concerned about the environment, the ongoing war in Iraq, health care (especially the future of stem cell research) and many other domestic issues.

However, since the upcoming Democratic debate will focus on LGBT issues, I’d like to discuss my feelings on why gay marriage is an important issue to me and why I think it should be supported by all the Democratic candidates.

( More stuff Lance says about gayness. Wooo Lance! )

I understand this issue isn’t going to win an election for the Democrats and may even cost votes, but supporting gay marriage is the right thing to do. I think that the Democratic Party needs to rise above the past and help all people have the right to marry whomever they choose. I want to live in a place where no one has to feel ashamed of who they are, who they choose to spend their life with and a place where everyone can make the choice if they would like to get married. Now is the time for our Democratic candidates to stand strong and fight for what’s right.

Even if he didn't, you know, sit there and type all this out, I'm sure he thinks some of these things, and that's wonderful. At the very least, Lance allowed his name to be used for this blog. If this is the sort of thing we can expect from his book... I CAN'T WAIT. Whoever is writing for him writes like I do. Fabulous.

My favorite bit is definitely the part about gay teenagers and the really direct effects the gay marriage debate has on them in terms of shaming and so on. It seems like he finally, REALLY understands this issue--that it's not about marriage per say, but about equal rights and the ways in which denying gays certain rights that straights get basically equates to creating second-class citizens. It tells gays that they are unworthy, that being gay is something to be ashamed of. It tells them that the government is so ashamed of them and their love that they want to codify that shame into state constitutions and laws.

Lance's blog comes just in time for the Bush Administration to announce that it plans to veto new hate crimes legislation that would include homosexuals as a protected group. Now, I don't agree with hate crimes legislation in general, but again--if it is going to exist, gays should be included as a protected minority.

There's a special debate on Thursday at 9pm EST on Logo for the Democratic candidates to discuss LGBT issues only. So if you're wondering where your favorite Presidential candidate stands, check it out. You may be shocked (and, sadly, disappointed) to hear what they say.

First off, the new episode of slashcast is up here: Episode 18 - Do the Whirlwind. And don't forget, you can subscribe to Slashcast on iTunes right here.

I did my segment this episode on Pride, seeing as we've just finished out June, which is Pride month.

Leslie Is My Hero

I see a lot of strange people on the streets here in Austin, Texas. Our city's motto, as seen slathered on every car bumper within the city limits, is "Keep Austin weird," and the long-time residents and Austin institutions hold that motto very seriously. The other day while driving home from work, I saw a grown man wearing bunny ears and a big fluff ball tail hopping down the sidewalk on a contraption that greatly resembled the unholy lovechild of a pogo stick and a pair of stilts. I don't know what Bunny Man thinks he's doing, exactly, hopping down the sidewalk, but I've seen him more than once, and he definitely helps keep Austin weird.

But possibly the weirdest Austin resident is a man who goes by the name of Leslie, although I'm sure that's not his real name. ( I saw Leslie the other day, strolling down South Congress in his typical Leslie uniform: cowboy hat, platform shoes, belly-revealing sparkly top, and a tiny, tiny leopard-print thong that leaves very little to the imagination. )

*

And while we're on the topic of LGBT rights and so on, the other day I was talking about I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and my general anxiety over this movie, which, having seen the previews, I'm pretty sure can't be good in anyway. And now, having read the review in The Hollywood Reporter, I'm further inclined to never see it, except maybe Lance's bit, which someone will surely upload someday. From the review:

"I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" is a "gay" comedy created by straights who want to have it both ways: Hit the audience with a barrage of homophobia and gay jokes yet wind up with an ecumenical, politically correct embrace of all points of sexual orientation. It's the equivalent of that old Jerry Seinfeld bit where he mentions someone is gay but quickly adds, "Not that there's anything wrong with that." We even get the film's star, Adam Sandler, summing up what he has learned from his experiences pretending to be gay: Don't use the word "faggot," he lectures. It's hurtful.

( Chuck & Larry won't be hurtful at the boxoffice, where Sandler is a highly commercial comedy brand. )

*

So yeah, I don't think I'll be seeing it, despite my love of Adam Sandler. And I just wanted to point out that they said basically nothing about the Biel-monster's performance, aside from calling her "beautiful" and willing to let Adam Sandler grope her tits, which reinforces my dislike of her, stretching back to her 'Seventh Heaven' days when I thought Mary should die for being so perfect and annoying and mean to Lucy.

Not that I watched the show. Just. It was on before Buffy, so sometimes I might've caught a little bit of it. STFU.

In my most recent slashcast segment, I decided to attempt positivity and optimism! And also, how many Justin Timberlake references can I manage to work in? (Answer: a LOT).

Things Are Getting Better, So Don't Move to Canada Yet

On the evening of November 7, 2000, my mother called me crying, nearly hysterical, to declare that she was moving to Canada because she refused to reside in a country with THAT MAN as president. "But mom," I said, amused, "Canada is only an hour away and you spend all your weekends at the casino there, anyway, so that's not really a sacrifice, is it?"

"Well, I can see that you're not taking this situation seriously," my mother said, and hung up on me. It was the first presidential election I got to vote in, and at the time, I thought the entire situation was hilarious, because honestly, I didn't think George W. Bush (or THAT MAN, as my mother still insists on calling him) would actually become president. I thought, naively, perhaps, that the Supreme Court would get their heads out their asses, justice would prevail, and Al Gore would become president. He'd won the popular vote, after all, and after eight years (and most of my adult life) with Bill Clinton as president, ( I couldn't imagine an American public stupid enough and short-sighted enough to accept a semi-retarded man who can't pronounce half the words in his speech writer's vocabulary as President. )

I post this now, because the candidates are, in fact, gearing up and seem to have chosen Pride Month as the time to release their official statements re: the Gays and how much they love us and really really want our votes and campaign donations. It's good to see democrats realizing the immense financial capital gays have and pandering to us the way they do everyone else. First, Barak Obama came out with his statement:

"Pride Month is a reminder that while we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do."

"Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

"It's time to turn the page on the bitterness and bigotry that fill so much of today's LGBT rights debate. The rights of all Americans should be protected -- whether it's at work or anyplace else. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to be repealed because patriotism and a sense of duty should be the key tests for military service, not sexual orientation. Civil unions should give gay couples full rights. And those who commit hate crimes should be punished no matter whether those crimes are committed on account of race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation."

"This Pride Month, let's make our founding promise of equality a reality for every American." (Source.

And now, Ms Hillary Clinton has issued a Statement on the Gays as well:

As we celebrate Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, I want to commend the LGBT community on a historic year that brought our country closer to equality and closer to ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Just a year ago, I worked with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate as well as with LGBT leaders to defeat the divisive and discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Since then, we not only defeated FMA, but we have been able to make real progress in achieving fairness for all Americans. In fact, since June 2006, New Jersey and New Hampshire became the third and fourth states to adopt civil unions and Washington and Iowa were added to the list of states that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. A similar bill in Colorado is expected to be signed into law soon. And in Congress, we are finally on the verge of passing the Matthew Shepherd Act, which would expand hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. What a difference a year makes...

( Cutting because she goes on for a WHILE. )

For the record, I'm still very much on the fence as to who I'd vote for in the primaries. I mean, ideally, it'd be Kucenich, but realistically, it'll be Obama or Clinton, so I'm looking very carefully at the statements these two are making and trying to figure out which one I like better. Ultimately, I will vote for either of them in a presidential race. In any case, LGBT rights are one of the most important issues to me in this election, so it's great to see these two statements side-by-side.

( Another cut so I can dissect the statements. )

ETA: And apparently, primary debates have started and I managed to miss the first two! A transcript from the second, for which the HRC provided a questionairre on gay rights stances, can be found right here. For the record, all who answered the questionairre are infavor of civil unions, EXCEPT Kucinich, who is in favor of gay marriage. *draws a million hearts around my favorite alien congressman*